Intercomparison of Operational Ocean Forecasting Systems in the framework of GODAE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the main benefits of the GODAE 10-year activity is the implementation of ocean forecasting systems in several countries. In 2008, several systems are operated routinely, at global or basin scale. Among them, the BLUElink (Australia), HYCOM (USA), MOVE/MRI.COM (Japan), Mercator (France), FOAM (United Kingdom), TOPAZ (Norway) and C-NOOFS (Canada) systems offered to demonstrate their operational feasibility by performing an intercomparison exercise during a three months period (February to April 2008). The objectives were: a) to show that operational ocean forecasting systems are operated routinely in different countries, and that they can interact; b) to perform in a similar way a scientific validation aimed to assess the quality of the ocean estimates, the performance, and forecasting capabilities of each system; and c) to learn from this intercomparison exercise to increase inter-operability and collaboration in real time. The intercomparison relies on the assessment strategy developed for the EU MERSEA project, where diagnostics over the global ocean have been revisited by the GODAE contributors. This approach, based on metrics, allow for each system: a) to verify if ocean estimates are consistent with the current general knowledge of the dynamics; and b) to evaluate the accuracy of delivered products, compared to space and in-situ observations. Using the same diagnostics also allows one to intercompare the results from each system consistently. Water masses and general circulation description by the different systems are consistent with WOA05 Levitus climatology. The large scale dynamics (tropical, subtropical and subpolar gyres ) are also correctly reproduced. At short scales, benefit of high resolution systems can be evidenced on the turbulent eddy field, in particular when compared to eddy kinetic energy deduced from satellite altimetry of drifter observations. Comparisons to high resolution SST products show some discrepancies on ocean surface representation, either due to model and forcing fields errors, or assimilation scheme efficiency. Comparisons to sea-ice satellite products also evidence discrepancies linked to model, forcing and assimilation strategies of each forecasting system.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".